My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2009
>
CC Agenda - 09/28/09 Meeting
>
Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 12:29:30 PM
Creation date
9/24/2009 1:15:43 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
9/28/2009
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
27
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
UGB. Ms. Gardner said that issue had not been specifically considered in the ECLA process but could be pursued in <br />future conversations. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka commented that growth rates, such as construction of single-family homes and density of development, <br />were dramatically different over the last three years than the figures reflected in averages over the last eight years. <br />He asked if it would be more accurate to use recent numbers in the model rather than averages. Mr. Dedrick said the <br />period of time for which data was reviewed was defined by statute as since the last code update, 2001-2008. He said <br />the committee felt the average of 64 percent for single- family dwellings seemed high. A review of the last 30 years <br />indicated that 55 percent was more realistic as larger developments could have a disproportionate impact in a shorter <br />period of time. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka suggested that the density per acre and housing type figures should be modified. Mr. Dedrick replied <br />that the advisory committee had already asked to see both higher and lower variables for housing mix and housing <br />density in scenarios. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asked why the council had to pass a motion instead of waiting for other scenarios. She said the motion <br />language seemed to mean the recommended values were being accepted. Mr. Dedrick said the motion would inform <br />staff that the baseline data was an acceptable starting point. He said staff would continue to provide scenarios. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asked if a 1.4 percent employment growth rate indicated how much land would be needed as well as the <br />number of jobs. Mr. Dedrick said the employment forecast translated into jobs created and the City would need to <br />plan for land. Trends indicated the employment sectors, job types and density that could be anticipated. The council <br />could express a preference for certain types of jobs. <br /> <br />Mr. Brown thought the 1.4 percent employment growth rate over 20 years was too high because it would take several <br />years for the City to recover jobs lost in the past two years. He asked if the PSU forecast was the basis for the <br />employment growth data. Mr. Dedrick said the PSU forecast was only relevant to housing. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz remarked that staff was going in the right direction. She pointed out that one large employer could make <br />up for the recent job losses. She looked forward to future conversations as more scenarios were developed. <br /> <br />Ms. Piercy commented that small cities had strong opinions about their destinies and Eugene had no ability to control <br />their desires for growth, but all jurisdictions in Lane County should plan cooperatively for the future. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark asked that the council have an informed conversation about accelerating the growth rate at which jobs <br />were recovered and the impact that might have on land need. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved, with the understanding that there would be dif- <br />ferent scenarios in the future, to direct the City Manager to move forward with the baseline <br />assumptions, which is a starting point, expressed as recommended values in column 2 of At- <br />tachment C, for the analysis of future employment land needs, residential land needs, and <br />public and semi-public land needs. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark offered a friendly amendment to add the following at the end of the motion: “as a <br />baseline to inform the policy discussions and development of future scenarios.” <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka restated his motion: I move to direct the City Manager to move forward with <br />the baseline assumptions expressed as recommended values in column 2 of Attachment C, <br />for the analysis of future employment land needs, residential land needs, and public and <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 10, 2009 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.